Jindal Drugs Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through The Secretary( Revenue) , Ministry Of Finance, Dept. Of Revenue And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner succeeds and is entitled to the refund. The reasoning was that the Petitioner was claiming drawback only for the custom component at the specified rates, and crucially, the rates under column 'A' and 'B' for the product exported were the same, a fact not disputed by the Respondents. The denial of the refund was based solely on the technical ground of affixing the suffix 'A'. The Court found this situation similar to the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, which was confirmed by the Apex Court. The operative direction was for the Respondents to sanction the refund towards IGST paid in respect of the goods exported. The Court also noted that statutory interest shall follow if there are no other impediments. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Petitioner, Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., sought a direction from the Bombay High Court to sanction a refund of Rs. 1,05,68,057/- under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, Section 54 of the CGST Act, and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. The Petitioner had exported goods and paid integrated goods and service tax. The refund was denied by the Respondents on the ground that the Petitioner had mistakenly affixed the suffix 'A' instead of 'B' to its drawback claim, which the Respondents interpreted as claiming a higher drawback. The Petitioner contended that the drawback claimed was the same as the custom component and that the rates in column 'A' and 'B' were identical for the exported goods, a fact not disputed by the Respondents. The Petitioner relied on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, confirmed by the Apex Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of IGST paid on exported goods, despite affixing the suffix 'A' to its drawback claim, when the rates in column 'A' and 'B' are identical and the drawback claimed does not exceed the custom component? (Section 16(3)(b) IGST Act, Section 54 CGST Act, Rule 96 CGST Rules) Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that it had not claimed a higher drawback and that the suffix 'A' was a mistake, while the actual drawback claimed matched the custom component. They relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, which was upheld by the Apex Court, stating that the Petitioner's case was squarely covered by this precedent. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents contended that the affixing of suffix 'A' was sufficient to infer that the Petitioner claimed a higher drawback. They relied on a circular dated 09.10.2018, which suggested that declaring drawback serials suffixed with 'A' or 'C' and making a specific declaration meant exporters consciously relinquished their IGST/ITC claims. Therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to the refund.